Hillary gets elected and is arrested under the Libby Law or others. It's not inauguration yet. What then?

Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 7 months ago to Politics
59 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Read on.. Your chance to second guess Constitutonal Law or dictatorial powers. .

So... on to what if time. Hillary get's elected both popular and electoral college. FBI steps in before she is inaugurated. This one goes straight to the Supreme Court. A number of decisions. Act of Succession and provision for ruling unfit to serve pop up. What if the current POTUS issues a pardon? A pardon is not a Not Guilty verdict...or is it? If the charge was straight criminal can and may the Congress still go immediate impeachment IF she is sworn in.
Under the Libby Law it's quite possible these and more questions would pop up between voting day and inauguration day. So...

Don't get to carried away. This one deserves it's own thread but I'll start it 'as is as stated here.'


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by conscious1978 9 years, 7 months ago
    If Clinton is elected President, many of these questions won't matter. I think her election would signal the end of the rule of law in our country. In other words, if you have enough of the right connections and influence, your gang can get away with anything. Think about it...how else could she be elected POTUS given her extensive political history?

    If she is elected, legal protection of individual rights would be a memory denigrated by the new, unfettered elite as part of that "failed" system of capitalism. Why do I think that? Because her election would be in defiance of all the current laws she has broken. So, the interpretation of all law becomes dependent on subjective political pull.

    Anarchy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by strugatsky 9 years, 7 months ago
      Agree with all of the above, except "Anarchy" - totalitarian despotism, in the Stalin/Hitler/Dear Leader model. Welkome to Amerika!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ 9 years, 7 months ago
        Anarchist are the extremist of the right. Totalitarian despotism etc the extremists of the left.

        The left is Government over people all using small f fascism or total control of everything.

        The right of center using the constitution as center is Citizen over government as temporary employees. Very few republicans as most are government over citizen types.

        The center according to the left is there center Rinos to the their center's right and Democrats starting on the left of their center.

        Depends on which definition of center you use.

        Libertarians are hard to figure. They wander on both sides of Constitutional Center depending on who is speaking for them. The recent post on Ayn Rand and the undocumented claim of lying to immigration is an example.

        Not many people live right of center and most of them are firmly attached to the Constitution or some similar belief feature freedom, independence, free speech, etc. etc. etc. things not much taught in schools anymore. Objectivists probably or even mostly it's not really a party platform. but independent thinkers for sure. the rest is easy to figure out when you match actions with words and they don't add up.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 9 years, 7 months ago
          Anarchy is not an " extreme of the right". There are claimed "left" as well as claimed right" anarchists, but If individualism means the right, anarchism is the opposite, not an "extreme" version.

          conscious1978 is right: when government by law breaks down, it's anarchy -- the government using force however it wants, plus any other gang of thugs getting away with it, too. But it wouldn't start with Cackles, Obama has already begun.

          The 'Justice' Dept, like IRS, EPA, etc., is already being used to persecute political enemies while evading enforcement of legitimate laws. So the original question of what would happen if Cackles were indicted before coronation is unanswerable as a legal matter -- it would be whatever they want it to be (and what they want is more predictable). Obama pardoning her is almost the least of what he is going to do with executive decrees on the way out. If Obama's Executive were to allow her to be convicted at all, then not pardoned, she would pardon herself upon seizing office. Guilt or innocence, and objective legal procedures and criteria, would all be irrelevant -- that is the nature of statism.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ 9 years, 7 months ago
          Although I eagerly await the documentation promised into two issues of the magazine and as yet have not materialized. The incident described is highly likely given the context of the times and conditions about 90 years ago. Had I been an employee of the government back then I would have advised any such person to chose their words carefully and on what they might say....something like the Small Business Administration does routinely for immigrants these days and does not do for existing citizens.Having escaped the horrors of Communism in Russia I could not imagine not doing anything including going underground in the US to escape deportation. to what was a 10 million plus purge of the country by the Communists - not counting eventual war time losses or worse getting stuck in between in places like Poland or Germany. To answer the original question with the caveat I've yet seen no documentary evidence - as promised.

          Libertarians occupy a lonely position. The few other splinter parties are themselves fragmented squabblers and most reduced to voting for the lesser of two evil concept for lack of ability to simply cooperate and graduate. The excuses are oh so tempting and after all aren't the Constitution and concepts such as individual freedom on the way out anyway.....

          Seig Me No Heils Comrade I DO NOT serve the party in any of it's shapes or forms. I serve the Constitution and if necessary stand alone.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 7 months ago
    why, the presidency goes to her v.p. who is, logically,
    Jeb Bush! . if Jeb can't find a v.p. then it goes to the next-in-line,
    John Kasich. . if John can't get it together, then we go to
    Reince Priebus and Debbie W-S for an arm-wrestling competition
    and surrender the nation to France. -- j
    .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 9 years, 7 months ago
      Actually...I thought Bernie Sanders would get it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 7 months ago
        the u.s. headed by Bernie would be like the Boy Scouts
        headed by Tiny Tim (remember him?) -- zany and stupid! -- j
        .
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ 9 years, 7 months ago
          Here's another idea or thought. Pres and VP elected. Prior to inauguaration or hand over day Pres arrested on felony charges, now in fact being investigated, the Libby Law. VP who ever moves up then also gets arrested on the same charges. It's now a rico conspiracy. Act of Succession kicks in but no cabinet is appointed for after inauguration. that leaves Speaker of the House and President of the Senate. Only one who chooses his own VP. That isn't an immediate requirement we've spent almost 20% I think it is of our time as a nation without a VP. No matter the next guy in line is the new speaker or President Por Tempore.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 7 months ago
            yes, and Paul Ryan would be like having an accountant
            for a pastor -- nothing but numbers;;; no policies. . HAL 2000 running
            the budget and the world leaving us in the dust. -- j
            .
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 9 years, 7 months ago
    Once the congress has counted the electoral votes and certified the election, I think the only way Hillary does not become president is if the House impeaches her and the Senate votes to convict.

    Congress can pass a bill of impeachment for any reason it wants to. There is no requirement that an actual law be broken, nor as we have seen, does breaking the law automatically guarantee removal from office.

    I don't think the Supreme Court hears the case.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 7 months ago
    This would be the famous "worst case scenario." Should things happen that way, and keep in mind that I'm not suicidal, I would not mind the fact that I'm old and ready to step over to that parallel universe called death. It would certainly mean the dissolution of the American Experiment, and a return to the Dark Ages.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 9 years, 7 months ago
    I hope nothing is settled and no charges are brought on any Hillary stuff until after BHO is out of office. He would simply Pardon her for any and all wrong doing.
    Rather than even considering that she might get elected why not see to it that she does not! That means voting for her opponent at any cost even if he/she stinks. Talk to your friends and family to get them in the same mind set and most important that we all talk to our non political type friends to make sure they get out to vote.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ 9 years, 7 months ago
      Wrong it only means you get the same type with he same stripes the two are hand selected and force fed and all from the same government over people belief system. the antidote is much harder it takes a real landslide majority of someone other than the two choices of the left. That's their ace in the hole and it comes from tolerating a one party two faced system.

      Two choices a massive no doubt no BS landslide of not voting at all. That's the under vote and it's significance is the loss of confidence and withdrawal of consent.

      Second is a massive overwhelming flood of write ins for the exact same individual. Too big too fail amounts.

      The third doesn't bear mentioning. We use ballots not bullets.

      The fourth is the military upholding their oath of office.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by GaryL 9 years, 7 months ago
        Hey Michael, I can't say you are all wrong with your thoughts but I will say we have to work with the system we have. You have to get to first base before going to second, third and home! Not enough of us will come together just yet to go with any of your theories! There certainly could be enough right now to elect a non politician so I say that is just fine because as you say more of the same is likely on the way. I just don't want the FSA to win.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ 9 years, 7 months ago
          I was testing the waters. I have not formed a committee to run for appointed office. Theoretically.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by GaryL 9 years, 7 months ago
            LOL! Test the waters later. For this election the number one goal is to get the democrats out of the top spots no matter what. If that happens we will then have to demand the republicans serve the will of the people unlike the previous party flips we have achieved. As far as I am concerned these Liberals can take it on a hop because they are destroying everything that is the USA.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by $ 9 years, 7 months ago
              and replace them with what a left wing RINO That may be your number one goal, that maybe the number one goal of the left, but it's assuredly not the number one goal of those who are not supporters of left wing socialist fascism. Try reframing your not so good at it yet. The number one goal is a return to a. Constitution. b. a multi party system of government, c. a government with honest and open voting d. a government that makes changes legally and not through trickery or despotism e. a government for, of , and by the people and not for, of,and by a neo-feudalistic aristocracy AND that includes all RINOS and their supporters.

              At present Republican = Rino = Democrat = Dino = Socialist = Secular Progressive and your goal sorry to say is spelled

              S T A T U S Q U O

              You may continue to choose evil is you wish to do so. Or did you have something or somebody else in mind. I just wiped out of consideration all the choices that are going to be allowed.

              Your theory has failed for the last fifty some http://years.It's another way of saying give in to evil.

              There are always choices usually three. Right, 'Wrong and Compromise. Which makes two wrong choices and one right choice.

              Don't expect a free ride here. You I think belong to the Constitutional 'Conservatives. I am an active Constitutional Centrist which isn't a party it's a state of being. I'm surprised and shocked that someone with your credentials would suggest such a thing.

              Your last sentence especially since your first sentences reek of supporting the left and the liberals.

              PS So ....who did you have in mind? If you say Trump your fired.

              You can wait until 'then' until pigs learn how to fly with out United. I'm more interested in getting the job done.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by GaryL 9 years, 7 months ago
                You label yourself a Constitutional Centrist and I am simply a Realist. We agree on almost every aspect of this political mess we have but you have either misread me from the beginning. Until a major and massive change comes to this country your ideas are nothing but "Hope for Change". Where did we hear that before? One step at a time my friend because third parties are just not here yet and the Ron and Rand Libertarian attitude has not grabbed enough of us. You certainly are correct that RINOs is where we could end up but that is still just a touch better than stone cold socialists. I would likely vote for your guy if he was running!!!!!
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by $ 9 years, 7 months ago
                  No you are not a realist. you area rejectionest and have no staying power a touch better is not in the cards a lot worse is the inevitable outcome of joining the secular devil's congregation. Get behind me.. Thy name is Soros ....or worse.

                  The change necessary is seize control then fix things but it does not include voting for those committed to the other side. Even saying that makes no sense and is historically incorrect. Sorry to see a good centrist join the dark side.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by GaryL 9 years, 7 months ago
                    OK, You win! Let me know when your guy is running! I would love to one day cast a vote for a candidate I trust and believe. Has not happened in almost 64 years for me so instead of casting a vote for some third party, sure to lose and give the election to the party I don't want I do exactly as you accuse me of and try to go for the one I think is the lesser of the two evils. So far, even if the one I voted for wins, I have never felt like a winner.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by $ 9 years, 7 months ago
                      That was my question to you. Don't duck the question by redefining it Just answer it. You already said admitted you don't want to be a winner I'm just interested in how that occured.

                      A little hint. Your vote will go to the winner anyway. It's not your property it goes to the winner take all. You don't get the satisfaction of voting for the lesser of two evils they don't leave you with even that much dignity.

                      So ...who or whom since it's still unclear on the right wing of the left candidate. ....

                      My guy? Kinda sexist don't you think? My candidate's name starts with General and his/her program is upholding his oath of office to defend he Constitution. My guys and gals are his or hers troops who took the same oath. My guy/gal is the one that will uphold that oath and take over - hopefully if they judge you as worth it - dragging the country kicking and screaming back under the Constitution. My candidate's name is Martial Law as they are the only group legally entitled and required to conduct what some might call a counter revolution.

                      Personally I don't see any other way out of this socialist trap people keep voting for. And our motto is No More Cannon Fodder - No More Baby Factories. You don't even want to think about my candidate. My candidate has learned to despise people who treat my party members despicably but still believes in the oath of office. and we won't have to live in shame...

                      How do you like my party platform?

                      Now... what was your plan and whose your candidate?
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 7 months ago
    The afore mentioned comment is backed up by the

    Amendment 20 - Presidential, Congressional Terms. Ratified 1/23/1933.
    1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of
    January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified;
    and the terms of their successors shall then begin

    Closing the doors on Hillary's
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 7 months ago
    Using pardons for impeachment is verboten another one bites the dust.


    Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he
    shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of
    the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the
    Constitution of the United States."

    Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

    The President ...and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 7 months ago
    I couldn't find this interpretation but it is the answer so up jumps the devil in the details.

    "Article II Executive Branch

    "Before he (the President) enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

    'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States'."

    That's when the pay check starts.

    Pursuant to a previous discussion what if Hillary were elected popular and electoral and then got indicted, apprehended or arrested on some of these investigations. Could she pardon herself etc.

    If arrested before taking the Oath she would not be President. He phatassy is in jeopardy until January 20th Noon

    Until she was convicted Obama couldn't issue a pardon. Ex Post Facto is denied numerous places. He would have to do that before the investigation started and that would constitute interference with an investigation and put himself in jeopardy. Would the Court conduct the swearing in? Doubtful.

    After arrest she would be unable to serve Act of Succession takes over on the 20th with the VP as the President.

    After conviction she could get a pardon but not be President.

    The only route around this is Biden resigns. Hillary is appointed VP, Obama resigns early, Hillary takes the oath and IS President prior to the 20th. Or some such flavor.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 7 months ago
    About 583,000 results (0.47 seconds)

    Of interest it''s never been done. Despite urging Clinton agreed not to self pardon though the issue was not settled.

    Here's some for and against opinions.



    [PDF]The Constitutional Case Against Presidential Self-Pardons
    digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewco......

    by BC Kalt - ‎1997 - ‎Cited by 52 - ‎Related articles
    Jan 1, 1997 - 230 n.72 (1993) (doubting that President can pardon self); Akhil Reed Amar On Judictal ..... 10, at 62 & n.36 (citing 4 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE.
    [PDF]An Overview of the Presidential Pardoning Power
    https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20...
    Dec 12, 2006 - Absent these limitations, the President's authority to grant pardons is ... The Constitutional Case Against Presidential Self Pardons,” ..... as being advisory in nature.38 Indeed, these regulations have been cited by the courts as.
    [PDF]Limiting the Federal Pardon Power - Digital Repository ...
    www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/vi...
    by KH Fowler - ‎2008 - ‎Cited by 3 - ‎Related articles
    18. Id. at 132. See also Strasser, supra note 4, at 91 n.39 (citing Herrara v. Collins, 506 .... Analysis of the Presidential Self-Pardon Power, 52 OKLA. L. REV.
    Can the President Pardon Himself? - Concurring Opinions
    concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/...
    Dec 14, 2008 - The Constitutional Case Against Presidential Self-Pardons. This was ... Smith cites his pardon and moves to dismiss the indictment. This case is ...
    You visited this page on 11/16/15.


    Article II, Section 2, Clause 1: Pardon Power
    www.heritage.org/constitution/article...
    The power to pardon is one of the least limited powers granted to the President in the Constitution. The only limits mentioned in the Constitution are that pardons ...
    Missing: cites
    Can President Clinton Pardon Himself? - Slate
    www.slate.com/articles/.../can_presid...
    Dec 30, 1998 - This interpretation not only prohibits Clinton from self-pardoning, it also prohibits a future president (e.g. Al Gore) from pardoning Clinton. (It was ...
    Missing: cites
    Ford Gives Pardon To Nixon, Who Regrets 'My Mistakes'
    www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onth...
    Ford Grants Nixon Pardon for Any Crimes in Office ... 'Pain Expressed': Ex-President Cites His Sorrow at the Way He Handled Watergate ... cannot decline to testify under the Fifth Amendment, which protects citizens against self-incrimination.
    Pardons: Venality, Self-Interest? - latimes
    articles.latimes.com/2001/mar/03/loca...
    Mar 3, 2001 - ... personal gain for pardons, apologists then cite prior presidential pardons as defense. The prior cases cited (Bush and Caspar Weinberger; ...
    Bush Pardons Weinberger in Iran-Contra Affair
    www.washingtonpost.com › Politics
    Mar 28, 2006 - President Bush yesterday pardoned former defense secretary Caspar W. ... denied that Bush had any self-interested motive for pardoning Weinberger and ... citing precedents including President Andrew Johnson's pardon of ...
    Presidents Creating the Presidency: Deeds Done in Words
    https://books.google.com.mx/books?isb...
    Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, ‎Kathleen Hall Jamieson - 2008 - ‎Language Arts & Disciplines
    ... that his legal advisers had cited a Supreme Court opinion stating that “the President ... Moreover, the Court had found that “a pardon 'carries an imputation of guilt, ... affair were intentionally self-serving and illegal] and seemed to support it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years, 7 months ago
    I see not many have addressed the subject but have addressed the horror...Can't blame them at all.
    Can't find much on 'Libby law' nor if a pardon would allow hiltery to move ahead but if prevented from soiling the white house then it would go to VP.
    Best case scenario would be the VP complicit also and the presidency going to speaker of the House. Not sure if that would be temporary or not...got some studying to do
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 7 months ago
    The way I read the Constitution, a regular criminal conviction does not disqualify a person from the Presidency or any other office. Nor is it possible to impeach a President-elect before s/he has taken office.

    So the only possible way I see to prevent her from taking office (assuming she's still alive) is the 25th Amendment disability process. That is, the new Vice President would have to be sworn in, and then s/he, plus a majority of cabinet members, would have to notify Congress that the President is unable to discharge the duties of her office. This is not going to happen, of course, because the Cabinet at that time will still be the last one appointed by President Obama -- there is no way to appoint new cabinet members without a President making the appointment. (I suppose they could be impeached, in which case their deputies would succeed them. This would make no difference.)

    Result: Either Clinton will have to be sworn in -- in jail, or wherever she is -- or Congress will have to declare that she is constitutionally ineligible (in which case I'm sure the Supreme Court will immediately intervene and decide that question themselves).

    And if Clinton is sworn in, she will immediately pardon herself and that will be that.

    Impeachment is still possible after she is sworn in (though I doubt it will even be possible to achieve the 2/3 Republican majority in the new Senate which would make impeachment non-futile). But it can't possibly happen fast enough to prevent her from pardoning herself. Thus she would not stay president, but would stay out of jail.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ 9 years, 7 months ago
      Can or May a President pardon themselves? Nixon needed Ford for just that purpose.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 7 months ago
        The Constitution doesn't say anything specific to that question, and the courts have not yet addressed it because it's never been tried. I believe he can, though as always it will not get him/her out of impeachment.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ 9 years, 7 months ago
          But iimpeachment is only a Grand Jury indictment it is not a trial nor a conviction. The question rapidly becomes how can you try much less convict someone who has a Presidential Pardon? They can however get him on something else. There is no real definition for High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Brings us back to the Act of Succession and one part of the Constitution the 25th Amendment declaring a President unfit for duty. That's not Congress that is the Cabinet.=.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 7 months ago
            How can you impeach someone who has a presidential pardon? -- Article 2, section 2, first paragraph, last sentence.

            25th Amendment -- I covered that upthread.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ 9 years, 7 months ago
      Great question!!!! Can a President pardon him or herself. If so then Nixon didn't need Ford and could have kept on keeping on as President.
      Having been pardoned on that count or counts could the Congress still enact empeachment and trial? Good questions. I haven't a clue at this time. Whose up for it?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 7 months ago
        Nixon resigned the day that two articles of impeachment were introduced in the House. I believe he would have been convicted on them.

        And yes, impeachment is separate from criminal trial/conviction, this is spelt out in Article 1, section 3, last paragraph.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ChuckyBob 9 years, 7 months ago
    Many here may not remember the Nixonian era. Nixon was POTUS and Spiro Agnew was VP. Agnew left office under a cloud of misconduct. Gerald Ford then came in as VP. When it became apparent that Watergate was going to take Nixon down he resigned, thus making Ford POTUS. One of the first acts of Ford was to issue a pardon for Nixon. Nixon had not even been indicted. I don't remember if there was any legal challenge to the pardon, but I can't imagine there not being some challenge. In any case, there is precedent for issuing a pardon when no crime has been proven. Although there is precedent, I still believe that it was ex-constitutional and stinks worse than a Chicago sewer.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wmiranda 9 years, 7 months ago
    Interesting "what if". I think we'll have to cross that bridge if we get to it. My thinking is she is not Martha Stewart, so she won't go to jail. She will be the Dem nominee, not because she is the best qualified, rather, according to her supporters, it's her turn and she's entitled to win.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by evlwhtguy 9 years, 7 months ago
    Nothing will happen. We have 2 sets of laws on this country. One for the common folks and one for the power elite. The power elete tends to have 2 sets of rules based on who the mass media likes or dislikes.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by starznbarz 9 years, 7 months ago
    At the conclusion of the National party at the news of Clinton pacing in her cell, the reality would kick in that the indian princess was now in power, Harry Reid would stroke from all the blood rushing to one part of his body, Obama would volunteer the services of Valerie as "transitional VP" and Michelle would return to writing her manifesto against white liberty from an office at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 9 years, 7 months ago
    Acceptance of a Presidential pardon is an admission of guilt and makes her ineligible for the office of President. I would like to see the FBI move now. She is guilty. What charge? Take your pick. If the FBI doesn't move on her she is truly untouchable.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 9 years, 7 months ago
      On of the things the controversy over Barack Obama's birthplace brought out is that apparently no one has standing to challenge whether someone actually meets the constitutional requirements for President -- except possibly the Secretary of State of individual states when putting the person on the ballot.

      If they get on the ballot and win, the only mechanism that appears to be available is impeachment.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by jabuttrick 9 years, 7 months ago
        Or a rogue electoral college chooses someone else.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ 9 years, 7 months ago
          Ah yes....but are they rogue? The only laws forbidding them from voting any way they want are state laws and as we've seen those don't count.

          If state laws counted Congressional delegates to the federal government could be recalled. One of the powers not delegated. But they can't and that means....states don't count.

          The next step is winner take all nationwide
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by jabuttrick 9 years, 7 months ago
            Actually I meant "rogue" only in a colloquial sense. There are no restrictions on how electors can vote under the Constitution. And I believe any attempt by the states to control the votes of the electors would be held unconstitutional. The point is that in the hypothetical we are considering the electoral college could theoretically refuse to vote for Clinton if she were indicted between the election and the casting of the ballots by the college members. Purely speculation, of course.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by $ 9 years, 7 months ago
              Works for me. Now that begs a different question. If they refused to vote in both the Pres and the VP it goes to a choice of House or Senate Leader. OR can the electoral college choose some one else or two someone elses and if so assuming constitutional requirements are met would they have othere restrictions such as same party as the two tossed in the clink in obedience to popular vote ....or not. Same thing if later on act of succession is needed. Same party or could an inhouse revolution put someone like Pelosi in place of someone like....hell almost anyone?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo